Toyota to make some EV's. Why are they so ass-ugly?

[MetroMPG]

When I was young and stupider, we used to play "bumper tag" to amuse ourselves!

Most of the old cars we were driving had those fantastic "5 MPH" bumpers on them - rubber strips bonded to metal crossbeams, mounted to the car's frame or unibody with literal shock absorbers! They could take a hit, no problem. Fun times.

Oh - and no airbags, obviously.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

That is why I'm a fan of current bumpers. They can take a pretty good hit (straight on) and flex back into place. Old metal bumpers would dent from those hits.

Some modern bumpers may look undamaged, but the "crash box" covered by the plastic or rubber external lining won't flex back into place. Not sure if this also applies to US-spec variants of models available with different bumpers in other markets.

[redpoint5]

I figure most modern bumpers have styrofoam energy absorbers in them, which probably costs a fortune to replace. I'd probably skip repair of it on my car and risk slightly more whiplash if I hit something.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd probably skip repair of it on my car and risk slightly more whiplash if I hit something.

As long as it's a conscious decision, I wouldn't objectionate if someone would be willing to take the risk. OTOH it becomes troublesome while an unsuspecting buyer looking for a second-hand car gets a damaged vehicle without knowing to which extent it could compromise safety.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

As long as it's a conscious decision, I wouldn't objectionate if someone would be willing to take the risk. OTOH it becomes troublesome while an unsuspecting buyer looking for a second-hand car gets a damaged vehicle without knowing to which extent it could compromise safety.

I try to disclose any info I think someone would want to know.

Someone backed into the front end of the Prius and I just left the grapefruit sized hole in the bumper and took the $1,000 check.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I try to disclose any info I think someone would want to know.

Someone backed into the front end of the Prius and I just left the grapefruit sized hole in the bumper and took the $1,000 check.

Most people seem to only care about the aesthetics and give no actual value to safety, until they found they paid a premium for an actual lemon.

[redpoint5]

I've never understood people who prefer the aesthetic to the functional, but then I have an engineering mind, and not an artistic one (not that they are necessarily mutually exclusive).

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Some modern bumpers may look undamaged, but the "crash box" covered by the plastic or rubber external lining won't flex back into place. Not sure if this also applies to US-spec variants of models available with different bumpers in other markets.

No, the Styrofoam won't flex back after a 5 mph impact. That means the next 5 mph hit will flex the bumper again and farther and likely lead to more cosmetic damage.

The safety structures are deeper and very unlikely to be damaged in an impact that doesn't leave physical evidence.

Our 2005 Prius was hit from behind twice within a few months. Both times while my wife was sitting at a stop sign or traffic light. Both times we took it to a repair shop for the insurance estimate and the shop wanted to replace the foam and bumper cover for about $700. Both times we took the insurance money and put it in the bank. The second impact left some cracks in the paint but nothing structural.

[Isaac Zachary]

As far as ascetics go, I don't really care how the car looks in general. I like clean, painted cars, that's about it. What I do like is when the looks actually do something for the vehicle. If it's supposed to be an efficient vehicle, making it look like a Hummer (or making it a Hummer) makes about as much sense as making an airplane with anchors just because it "looks cool."

The reason why I generally don't like CUV's, SUV's and pickups is from an Ecomodder standpoint. The four main places my fuel goes is:

1. Engine inefficiency
2. Aerodynamic drag
3. Rolling resistance, and
4. Acceleration and braking

The thing is that with EV's engine(motor/battery) inefficiency and acceleration and braking are not as much as a problem. That leaves aerodynamic drag and rolling resitance.

I don't see rolling resistance going down anytime soon. People aren't about to drive scooters, or vehicles that weigh as much as a scooter, although that would be cool. Nor do are we going to install maglev roads or rails on highways either, at least in the near future. So that leaves aerodynamic drag as the next step towards better fuel mileage (or should I say electricity mileage). We have 4 things we can do to lower aerodynamic drag.

1. Reduce speed
2. Reduce fluid density
3. Reduce crossectional area of vehicle (shorter skinnier)
4. Improve aerodynamic shape

Nobody is going to cut their speed in half for efficiency (except me maybe). And we aren't at the point of creating vacuum chamber tunnels or moving to the Moon or Pluto yet either to reduce fluid density. So that leaves fixing the shape and profile as the way to improve aerodynamic drag.

The CUV/SUV shape seems like a step in the wrong direction. Taller and boxier is not more aerodynamic. I've aleady seen one guy complain how his Tesla Model X gets worse range than his Model S even though the X has a bigger battery. Want to know how on earth an EV with a bigger battery gets worse range than one with a smaller one? Because it's less aerodynamic, that's why. Had Tesla made a station wagon instead of an SUV they would have gotten better range with the same interior space.

I think this is also why some car manufactures are pushing for these socalled SUV/CUV coupes. It's an attempt at making a poor aerodyamic design a bit more palletable. But there's only so much you can do to make the SUV/CUV design more aerodynamic before it's no longer a SUV or CUV.

I know a lot of people hate the Toyota Prius, the Tesla Cyber Truck and the Aptera concept cars. But to me this is what a vehicle is supposed to look like: an attempt at actually being more efficient. Pumping out the same old sedans and hatchbacks just because everyone's all nostalgic over them, or pumping out the current invasion of CUV's because everyone all of the sudden thinks they need more ground clearance and head room for no real reason has nothing to do with efficiency or practicallity. I'd prefer cars to be shaped for the efficiency that they supposedly represent (I'm talking to you EV makers) than to just make them as tall and boxy as everyone else's CUV with a few cyberpunk accents and a touchscreen just so they can shout, "This car is so efficent. You can tell because of the size of it's touchscreen."

Once electric drive trains are 95% efficient, then what? Is that going to be the end of efficiency gains? Is 300KW charging the future, just because we won't ever be able to make cars more efficient because we will never break out of the utilitarian vehicle fad?

[redpoint5]

...and as I continually complain, our current design fad is to emphasize the thing that represents inefficiency, the grill. We're so enamored with them that nearly every car has a portion of fake grill to make it look bigger.